DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 15^th July 2021

Present: Sri.C.T.Sabu(President I/c)  

              : Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                        Date of Filing: 08/09/2020

CC /101/2020

Krishnaprakash.K,                                                                   -           Complainant

S/o.Thankaprakash.K,

Kannikandath(H),

Kannamkode, Karipode(PO),

Palakkad (DT),

Kerala, PIN – 678 503.

(By Party in Person Only)                                           

V/s

1. The Managing Director,                                                                                                           

    Professional Couriers,

    Basavanappa Compound,

    B H Road, Tiptur,

    Tumkur District, Karnataka,

    Pin – 572 201.

2. The Managing Director,                                                                            -           Opposite parties

    Professional Couriers,

    No.9/29, Suriyakannu Illam,

    Chandranagar, Opposite Chanakya Hotel,

    Palakkad, Kerala, Pin – 678 007.

(By Adv.P.Padmaprakash)

O R D E R

By Smt.Vidya.A, Member

Brief facts of the complaint  

            The opposite parties are carrying out courier services in the name of Professional Couriers. The 1^st opposite party is their branch in Tiptur, Tumkur District, Karnataka and 2^nd opposite party is their branch office in Palakkad.  The complainant’s sister who is residing in Tiptur, Karnataka had entrusted a package containing a smart phone ASUS ZENFONE MAX M2(ASUS XO1AD, IMEI 11:352204106219522, IMEI 12: 352204106219530) and 09 packets of snack items to the 1^st opposite party on 20/08/2020 for couriering to her residence in Palakkad Varnam House, Yakkara Branch Road, Green Field, Near DP Office Road, Palakkad.  The 1^st opposite party issued a bill with bill number TPR1157180 showing package weight 3.005kg to complainant’s sister and charged Rs.400/- for delivering the above mentioned parcel.  When the parcel reached in the address in Palakkad on 3/9/2020, the complainant found that the smart phone and three packets of snack items sent by his sister were missing.  Immediately he contacted the delivery boy and he told that he is not responsible for the loss and asked the complainant to contact the 2^nd opposite party’s office directly.  The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party’s office through telephone and the officer told him that when the package reached Palakkad office, it was only having 1.940kg. weight and sent the proof by mail.  The complainant registered a complaint over telephone to Palakkad office and in professional courier’s website with complaint number CRM353975.  Then he received a message saying that the customer executive will reach him shortly, but there was no response after that.  The complainant sent his complaint through mail to the Divisional Office of professional couriers Tiptur, Palakkad and Cochin enquiring about this. But he didn’t get any proper reply from the company.  So he went directly to the 2^nd opposite party’s office and at that time they did not behave properly and told that they are not responsible for the loss.  The complainant also had a previous experience of the same kind when he sent goods from Palakkad to Tiptur.  Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony.

            So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of missing items Rs.2,000/- for mental agony, Rs.2,000/- for travelling expenses, Rs.5,000/- for time loss and Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service.(Total of Rs.39,000/-).

Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties.  Notice to the 1^st opposite party returned stating ‘no such addressee’.  The complainant produced fresh address and the notice sent in that address was returned stating ‘refused to accept’.  So notice to 1^st opposite party deemed to be served.  Name called, absent and set ex-parte. Notice to 2^nd opposite party served and they filed vakalath. But after that there was no representation and no version filed from their part. Hence 2^nd opposite party’s name called, absent and set exparte.

Complainant filed chief affidavit.  Ext.A1 to A5(A2 in series) marked.   Subsequently when it was taken for orders, the complainant filed petition to re-open the evidence along with bill of the mobile phone. The petition was allowed and the bill of the mobile phone is marked as Ext.A6.

Main issues arising for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the cost/Compensation?

Issues 1&2

Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents produced.  

According to the complainant, his sister sent a package containing a smart phone ASUSZENPONE MAXM2 and nine packets of snack items through the 1^st opposite party.  The parcel was having a weight of 3.005kg.  But when the parcel reached 2^nd opposite party’s office, certain items including the smart phone was missing and the package’s weight was only 1.940kg.  Ext.A3 receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party shows that the total weight of the items entrusted for couriering to Palakkad is 3.005kg. and Ext.A5 shows the weight of the items received as 1.940kgs.  So the contentions of the complainant is proved by    Exts.A3 & A5. 

Then as per the complaint, the complainant contacted 2^nd opposite party’s office and registered a complaint through telephone.  He further registered a complaint in the professional courier’s online website and he received a reply stating that their customer executive will contact him immediately for solving the problem.  This is clear from Ext.A1.  According to the complainant there was no response after that.  Then he sent complaints to Divisional Office of professional couriers Tiptur, Palakkad, Bangalore & Cochin through e-mails which can be seen by Ext.A2 series.  As per the complaint, he did not receive any proper reply from the company.  Then the complainant directly went to the 2^nd opposite party’s office enquiring about this.  According to him they did not behave properly and told that they are not responsible for the loss.  

All these acts of the opposite parties shows that there is a clear deficiency in service on their part.  The weight difference in the parcel from 3.005kg to 1.940kg when it reached the 2^nd opposite party’s office clearly shows that some items had been lost.  So the opposite parties are answerable for that.  But according to the complainant, there was no response from their part and they behaved improperly.  Loss of items in the parcel sent by his sister with love and affection would have definitely caused mental agony to the complainant. 

Since the opposite parties remained ex-parte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  So the opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of missing items to the complainant.  They are also responsible for the mental agony, time loss and other inconvenience suffered by the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. 

We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as the cost of missing items.  The opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only)  for the deficiency in service on their part and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony, time loss and other inconveniences  suffered by the complainant.

The order shall be executed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due to them from the date of this order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the  15^th day of July  2021.      

                                                                                                                            Sd/-   SdSd/-/-

                              C.T.Sabu

                         (President I/c)

                                                                                         Sd/-Sd/-     

                                                                                                  Vidya.A

                             Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of complaint registered dated 02/09/2020 and 04/09/2020 to professional couriers.

Ext.A2 series – a) complaint sent to professional couriers, Palakkad office by e-mail dated 07/09/2020.

                            b) complaint sent to professional couriers, Bangalore office by e-mail dated 03/09/2020,

  07/09/2020.

                            c) complaint sent to professional couriers by e-mail dated 07/09/2020.

                            d) complaint sent to professional couriers, Bangalore office by e-mail dated 03/09/2020.

Ext.A3 – Bill dated 20/08/2020 received from professional couriers, Triptur office showing package

 weights 3.005 kg.

Ext.A4 – Photographs of damaged package received(2 pages).

Ext.A5 – Proof of package received weights only 1.940 kg from professional courier, Palakkad.

Ext.A6 – Tax invoice No.#FAB3342000020948 dated 25/10/2019 of ASUS ZENFONE MAX M2 smart phone

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite Party

NIL

Witness examined on the side of complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

NIL

Cost :   NIL